People who live behind glass windows should not throw stones

6 views
Skip to first unread message

Sesh Murthy

unread,
Apr 21, 1992, 11:48:18 AM4/21/92
to
> Subject: Re: another OS/2 distributor story
> From: gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin)
>
>
> According to the most recent issue of (BYTE, I think), one of the reasons
> that IBM took the risk of including the (different, and perhaps buggy) WPS
> in the 2.0 release is that it's not JDA code, so Microsoft has no rights to
> it. IBM hopes that OS/2 2.0 will be a big success, and then Microsoft won't
> be able to license others to sell a compatible product because it won't
> have the WPS. This alludes to my earlier posting regarding IBM's
> motivations with regards to controlling the industry.
>
> Microsoft probably has other pieces of technlogy they're developing which
> are also exempt from the JDA; obviously now that we're competing with IBM
> each party wants to have it's own private technology.
>
Dear Mr. Letwin, The world is smart enough to realize why Microsoft chose
stab its customers in the back and not support OS/2. You were too greedy
to splity the pie with IBM. You wanted all of it. Now you try and
generate FUD to counteract OS/2 popularity.

What is Microsoft withholding under the JDA. Is it some 3.1 code that you
expect IBM to be unable to duplicate. Is that why Mr. Parsons is spreading
FUD about 3.1 compatibility in OS/2
> gordon letwin
> not a spokesperson for microsoft
> not speaking for microsoft
Enquiring minds want to know how much stock do you own in MS. MS is valued
at 20 billion on sales of under 3 billion. This means that they are
expected to grow like crazy. Windows is what is supposed to make MS so
big. Now if Windows does not sell 10 million copies this year I expect MS
to drop in value by 10%. How much is that worth to you.

Sesh Murthy

Aaron T Dingus

unread,
Apr 21, 1992, 12:39:28 PM4/21/92
to
In article <1992Apr21.1...@cs.cmu.edu> mur...@EUPHRATES.EDRC.CMU.EDU (

Sesh Murthy) writes:
>Enquiring minds want to know how much stock do you own in MS. MS is valued
>at 20 billion on sales of under 3 billion. This means that they are
>expected to grow like crazy. Windows is what is supposed to make MS so
>big. Now if Windows does not sell 10 million copies this year I expect MS
>to drop in value by 10%. How much is that worth to you.
>
>Sesh Murthy

Why doesn't this guy just go out and buy a clue?

How many times is he going to post moronic references to
the portfolios of Microsoft's employees?

If he is in love with IBM and OS/2, wonderful! I am glad
that he found an operating system that does what he wants.

However, his postings are unproductive, on the wrong newsgroup,
accusatory in nature, and usually childish attacks on some
on else.

Maybe he should grow up, and whine unto his own self.

-ATD
--
Aaron T. Dingus
Professional Animal Trainer
The Ohio State Univeristy
adi...@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

Jay Keller

unread,
Apr 25, 1992, 11:26:26 PM4/25/92
to

Mr. Murthy makes a valid point with which I agree. If Mr. Letwin wishes to
attack IBM or its products, fine. It's his right to do so and we would
have no right to accuse him of any hidden motives. But if in fact (and I do
not yet have the answer to this question) he is a major Microsoft stockholder,
then his disclaimer "not a Microsoft spokesperson" and "not speaking for
Microsoft" constitutes an attempt to bamboozle all of us, and I for one
would resent that.

Mr. Murthy's call for Gordon Letwin to disclose his position with relation to
Microsoft ownership are fully justified, in light of Letwin's attacks on
Microsoft's competition. Calling him childish is the kind of personal attack
which in this context, Mr. Dingus, is what I would call childish.

Regards,

Jay Keller
Santa Clara, California, USA

bad...@netcom.com

not a microsoft spokesman
not speaking for microsoft
not a microsoft stockholder
no longer a microsoft customer
not an ibm spokesman
not speaking for ibm
not an ibm stockholder
still an ibm satisfied customer


Raymond Chen

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 2:50:28 PM4/26/92
to
Quick quiz: When Gordon writes "Not a Microsoft spokesman" he means...

(1) "My opinions are completely unbiased."
(2) "I own no stock in Microsoft."
(3) "I have no financial interest in the success of Windows or OS/2."
(4) "Everything I say is 100% true."
(5) "Not a Microsoft spokesman."

Answer: (5), though everybody seems to think he also means (1) (2) (3) and (4).

What does "Not a Microsoft spokesman" mean? It means that nothing he
says necessarily reflects the opinions of the management of Microsoft.
Nothing more. Nothing less.

If Gordon promises that Windows NT will make demons fly out of your
nose, that is a personal promise, not a business promise. If Gordon
says that everybody at Microsoft wears funny party hats and speaks
in French, that is his personal opinion, not official company policy.

Why does everyone have so much difficulty with this?
--
Raymond "Not a Princeton University spokesman" Chen

Gordon Letwin

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 4:57:00 PM4/26/92
to
In article <1992Apr21.1...@cs.cmu.edu> mur...@EUPHRATES.EDRC.CMU.EDU (Sesh Murthy) writes:
>>
>Dear Mr. Letwin, The world is smart enough to realize why Microsoft chose
>stab its customers in the back and not support OS/2. You were too greedy
>to splity the pie with IBM. You wanted all of it. Now you try and
>generate FUD to counteract OS/2 popularity.


Please note that this is not a reply to Mr. Murphy; instead I address this
to anyone out there who retains the ability to reason.

Note the amusing "logic" of the above posting: Microsoft was "too greedy
to split" with IBM - presumably this means developing OS/2 - so we
gave the entire project to IBM!

If that doesn't make any sense to you too, that's a good sign...

gordon letwin
not speaking for microsoft

Brian CAPSON

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 5:25:58 PM4/26/92
to
In article <5l0jffb...@netcom.com> bad...@netcom.com (Jay Keller) writes:
>
>Mr. Murthy makes a valid point with which I agree. If Mr. Letwin wishes to
>attack IBM or its products, fine. It's his right to do so and we would
>have no right to accuse him of any hidden motives. But if in fact (and I do
>not yet have the answer to this question) he is a major Microsoft stockholder,
>then his disclaimer "not a Microsoft spokesperson" and "not speaking for
>Microsoft" constitutes an attempt to bamboozle all of us, and I for one
>would resent that.
>
>Mr. Murthy's call for Gordon Letwin to disclose his position with relation to
>Microsoft ownership are fully justified, in light of Letwin's attacks on
>Microsoft's competition. Calling him childish is the kind of personal attack
>which in this context, Mr. Dingus, is what I would call childish.
>
>
>not a microsoft spokesman
>not speaking for microsoft
>not a microsoft stockholder
>no longer a microsoft customer
>not an ibm spokesman
>not speaking for ibm
>not an ibm stockholder
>still an ibm satisfied customer

You obviously have absolutely no clue as to why people put disclaimers
in their sig's. Mr. Letwin has never made any secret that he works for
Microsoft in his postings. Frequently, when people see a posting from
someone at Microsoft, or any other company, they mistakenly consider it
"official" information from that company when it is merely the opinion
of the person doing the posting. Mr. Letwin is in no position to
be announcing Microsoft corporate policy or intents, that is left to the
people who are paid to make those announcements, the PR people.
Therefore, to avoid any confusion on the matter, he (and any one else
who works for a company) puts a disclaimer in their sig, stating that
their comments are not to interpreted as representing those of the
company. Just like the editorial page of your local newspaper. Whether
he owns stock in the company (he most certainly does) doesn't mean a
damn thing when it comes to disclaimers. I own stock in Microsoft, it
doesn't mean that I can claim to speak for the company. But since it
doesn't say "@microsoft.com" in my address, no one is going to think
that I do so I don't need a disclaimer. Your foolish attempt at parody
above (by including a list of disclaimers) looks ridiculous, no one is
going to mistake you as representative of either of these companies.
Let's just hope they don't mistake you as a representative of Netcom.


- Brian

Gordon Letwin

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 6:20:04 PM4/26/92
to
In article <5l0jffb...@netcom.com> bad...@netcom.com (Jay Keller) writes:
>
>But if in fact (and I do
>not yet have the answer to this question) he is a major Microsoft stockholder,
>then his disclaimer "not a Microsoft spokesperson" and "not speaking for
>Microsoft" constitutes an attempt to bamboozle all of us, and I for one
>would resent that.

A harsh accusation, Mr. Keller. Please explain just how owning stock
in Microsoft automatically makes you a Microsoft spokesperson. If you have
an insurance policy and/or any mutual funds you probably own some stock,
indirectly, in IBM. Are you an IBM spokesperson, then? This is a total non-
sequetor. You want to think something nasty about me so you come up with
an argument to do so. The fact the the argument is empty and invalid doesn't
matter because it served your goal.

>Mr. Murthy's call for Gordon Letwin to disclose his position with relation to
>Microsoft ownership are fully justified, in light of Letwin's attacks on
>Microsoft's competition.

Attacks on the competition, eh? That's plural. Please quote two articles
of mine which "attacked" the competition. Not which attacked or criticized
some incorrect or irrational *statement* of a competitor's employee, but
which attacks the competion.

Or are you trying to bamboozle us all?

put up or shut up. (I"m getting tired of typing this)

gordon letwin
not a microsoft spokesperson
my pig owns Microsoft stock, and she's not a spokesperson either.

Timothy F. Sipples

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 7:25:14 PM4/26/92
to
In article <1992Apr26.2...@cs.mcgill.ca> be...@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>You obviously have absolutely no clue as to why people put disclaimers
>in their sig's. Mr. Letwin has never made any secret that he works for
>Microsoft in his postings. Frequently, when people see a posting from
>someone at Microsoft, or any other company, they mistakenly consider it
>"official" information from that company when it is merely the opinion
>of the person doing the posting. Mr. Letwin is in no position to
>be announcing Microsoft corporate policy or intents, that is left to the
>people who are paid to make those announcements, the PR people.
>[...]

I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your argument. Perhaps I
am a bit old fashioned, but Mr. Letwin is unavoidably, tacitly
representing his company every time he commits something to paper or
posts something here in a public forum.

I think his company would be well within its rights to ask that Mr.
Letwin conduct himself in a professional manner befitting Microsoft,
especially when using company equipment to put forth his views.

His views may be his own, but the manner in which he espouses those
views should always be professional.

Now, is that a reasonable standard? I think so. I wish it were more
often observed.

Just from a personal standpoint, I am a Microsoft customer and hope to
remain one. Quite frankly it has been a struggle lately. In my
opinion Word (in its graphical incarnation) is the finest word
processor on the market (oddly enough my favorite Word is the
Macintosh version). However, defending Word for PM has been difficult
lately, especially since Microsoft has elected not to issue a
2.0-level update nor correct many problems. For the moment I am
running Word for Windows under OS/2 2.0. As it stands right now my
next word processor will be from either Cambridge, MA, or Orem, UT.

But I digress. Follow up to comp.os.os2.misc.
--
Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
si...@ellis.uchicago.edu List, available via anonymous ftp from
Dept. of Economics 128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
Univ. of Chicago 60637 netmail from LIST...@BLEKUL11.BITNET.

Robert Cain

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 7:28:46 PM4/26/92
to
Let's remember the reason Gordon's financial stake in MS became an issue.
He posted an attack on IBMers posting here because of the financial stake
they supposedly had in doing so. He started this.
--
Bob Cain rc...@netcom.com 408-358-2007

"There are some strings. They're just not attached."
Victoria Roberts

Brian CAPSON

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 9:55:13 PM4/26/92
to
In article <1992Apr26.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> si...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>In article <1992Apr26.2...@cs.mcgill.ca> be...@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>>You obviously have absolutely no clue as to why people put disclaimers
>>in their sig's. Mr. Letwin has never made any secret that he works for
>>Microsoft in his postings. Frequently, when people see a posting from
>>someone at Microsoft, or any other company, they mistakenly consider it
>>"official" information from that company when it is merely the opinion
>>of the person doing the posting. Mr. Letwin is in no position to
>>be announcing Microsoft corporate policy or intents, that is left to the
>>people who are paid to make those announcements, the PR people.
>>[...]
>
>I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your argument. Perhaps I
>am a bit old fashioned, but Mr. Letwin is unavoidably, tacitly
>representing his company every time he commits something to paper or
>posts something here in a public forum.
>
>I think his company would be well within its rights to ask that Mr.
>Letwin conduct himself in a professional manner befitting Microsoft,
>especially when using company equipment to put forth his views.
>
>His views may be his own, but the manner in which he espouses those
>views should always be professional.
>
>Now, is that a reasonable standard? I think so. I wish it were more
>often observed.
>
>--
>Timothy F. Sipples Keeper of the OS/2 Frequently Asked Questions
>si...@ellis.uchicago.edu List, available via anonymous ftp from
>Dept. of Economics 128.123.35.151, directory pub/os2/faq, or via
>Univ. of Chicago 60637 netmail from LIST...@BLEKUL11.BITNET.

Perhaps you did not read the previous posts in this thread, but your
comments are out of context. It was never suggested that Mr. Letwin, or
anyone else be able to post without taking responsibility for their
words and actions. Certainly professionalism is expected on the net. It
is unfortunate that there has been a decided lack of it in the past few
weeks from particular posters onto this groups, as well as the OS/2
group. While to a certain extent you are right that Mr. Letwin may
represent, in some people's eyes, Microsoft, it is the exact same way as
you represent the University of Chicago. You certainly don't represent
the views of the Board of Governors of that University, yet some small
minded people may think poorly (or favorably) of the university based on
your posts. I agree that the same goes for Mr. Letwin, but that was
never the issue here. People were bashing Mr. Letwin because they were
under the mistaken notion that because he owned stock in Microsoft, he
had no right to claim that he wasn't a spokesperson for the company.
While perhaps his attitudes, in some misguided way, may REFLECT on
Microsoft, they most certainly don't REPRESENT Microsoft, which is the
issue here. My point still stands, and I thank you for your comments on
Professionalisn.

- Brian

Alan Ballard

unread,
Apr 26, 1992, 10:50:29 PM4/26/92
to

>I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your argument. Perhaps I
>am a bit old fashioned, but Mr. Letwin is unavoidably, tacitly
>representing his company every time he commits something to paper or
>posts something here in a public forum.

I strongly disagree with you here. It is something of a miracle of Usenet
that people like Gordon Letwin or Larry Saloman are able to
participate without having to get everything they write cleared by
their managers, their companies' lawyers, their lawyers' managers and
their lawyers' lawyers. For this to continue, we MUST accept that
individuals participate as individuals, not as company
representatives. If somebody's contributions are rude and offensive,
that reflects only on that individual. If somebody is less than
forthright about his vested interests in a product, it is a reflection
of that individual's integrity, not the company he works for.
--
Alan Ballard | Internet: bal...@ucs.ubc.ca
University Computing Services | Bitnet: USERAB1@UBCMTSG
University of British Columbia | Phone: 604-822-3074
Vancouver B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2 | Fax: 604-822-5116

min-woong sohn

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 1:30:02 AM4/27/92
to

Well, Brian, I think it is you rather than Timothy who did not closely
followed what was the issue in this thread. The issue was not whether
Gordon Letwin could use the line "not speaking for microsoft". Of
course, he can and we all know that he is not speaking for his company
at least in an official sense. Nonetheless, his professional, accurate,
complete, and factual postings might include such epithets as
popular and successful in describing Windows. This is why people
say that "not speaking for microsoft" is a deceitful disclaimer. He
is in fact speaking for microsoft when he glorifies the product of
his company in a news group where it is not welcome. (Gordon, I can
quote your posting on this, so don't...)

Min

min-woong sohn

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 1:33:50 AM4/27/92
to
In article <ballard....@swiss.ucs.ubc.ca> bal...@ucs.ubc.ca (Alan Ballard) writes:
>In <1992Apr26.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> si...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>>I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your argument. Perhaps I
>>am a bit old fashioned, but Mr. Letwin is unavoidably, tacitly
>>representing his company every time he commits something to paper or
>>posts something here in a public forum.
>
>I strongly disagree with you here. It is something of a miracle of Usenet
>that people like Gordon Letwin or Larry Saloman are able to
>participate without having to get everything they write cleared by
>their managers, their companies' lawyers, their lawyers' managers and
>their lawyers' lawyers. For this to continue, we MUST accept that
>individuals participate as individuals, not as company
>representatives. If somebody's contributions are rude and offensive,
>that reflects only on that individual. If somebody is less than
>forthright about his vested interests in a product, it is a reflection
>of that individual's integrity, not the company he works for.
>--

True. But sadly enough, everything seems to come in baggages, not
in individuals. You inevitably represents your family, your school,
your company, your ethnic group, your whatever. You are never free
from such associations. My two cents.

Min

min-woong sohn

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 1:41:37 AM4/27/92
to
In article <1992Apr26....@microsoft.com> gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>In article <5l0jffb...@netcom.com> bad...@netcom.com (Jay Keller) writes:
>>
>>But if in fact (and I do
>>not yet have the answer to this question) he is a major Microsoft stockholder,
>>then his disclaimer "not a Microsoft spokesperson" and "not speaking for
>>Microsoft" constitutes an attempt to bamboozle all of us, and I for one
>>would resent that.
>
>A harsh accusation, Mr. Keller. Please explain just how owning stock
>in Microsoft automatically makes you a Microsoft spokesperson.

It could be a nonsequitor (see below) if taken out of context or taken
out of its proper association. We perfectly well know how your pig's
owning (see below) MS stock got into the discussion. In other words,
we all suspect that you lost some of your professional attitude when
you ***attacked*** IBMers, and the reason for this I think has something
to do with your MS affiliation and then you claim that you are not
speaking for MS, which in turn sounds ***doubly*** deceitful to some of
us.

>If you have
>an insurance policy and/or any mutual funds you probably own some stock,
>indirectly, in IBM. Are you an IBM spokesperson, then? This is a total non-
>sequetor. You want to think something nasty about me so you come up with
>an argument to do so. The fact the the argument is empty and invalid doesn't
>matter because it served your goal.
>

> gordon letwin


> not a microsoft spokesperson
> my pig owns Microsoft stock, and she's not a spokesperson either.

Min

Milan Shah

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 12:42:00 PM4/27/92
to

> In <1992Apr26.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> si...@ellis.uchicago.edu
> (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:

> I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your argument. Perhaps I
> am a bit old fashioned, but Mr. Letwin is unavoidably, tacitly
> representing his company every time he commits something to paper or
> posts something here in a public forum.


I believe this to be completely incorrect under any fashion, old or
new. Just because Mr. Letwin is a *visible* and *well known* person
does not mean that he is a spokesperson for the company - would you
consider the asembly line guy who puts the shrink wrap on Windows 3.1
boxes a spokesperson for Microsoft? And do _you_ know for sure that
Mr. Letwin isn't that guy?

And just because he probably is ungodly rich and has a powerful
position at a big corporation does not mean his freedom of speech
rights are restricted in this public forum. As long as its not
libelous or otherwise damaging to any other person, Mr. Letwin is free
to post anything he wants.

Milan

Bryon Daly, ECE dept, UMass, Amherst

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 4:11:11 PM4/27/92
to
In article <MMSHAH.92A...@im5.lcs.mit.edu>, mms...@im.lcs.mit.edu (Milan Shah) writes:
>> In <1992Apr26.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> si...@ellis.uchicago.edu
>> (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>> I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your argument. Perhaps I
>> am a bit old fashioned, but Mr. Letwin is unavoidably, tacitly
>> representing his company every time he commits something to paper or
>> posts something here in a public forum.
>
>
> I believe this to be completely incorrect under any fashion, old or
> new. Just because Mr. Letwin is a *visible* and *well known* person
> does not mean that he is a spokesperson for the company - would you

You are right, it doesn't mean he is a spokesperson, but I don't
think that is what Mr. Sipples was getting at here. I believe he
was saying that Mr. Letwin's public actions/statements reflect upon
his employer, and that his words are lent credence by his affiliation
with that employer. With this comes some responsibility. Now if this
was rec.animals.pigs, this would be a non-issue. But of course, this
group discusses OS/2, which can justifiably be called a competitor to
Microsoft's products. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect Mr.
Letwin to behave with some decorum and maturity (even if he believes
the people he is dealing with are not doing the same).

> consider the asembly line guy who puts the shrink wrap on Windows 3.1
> boxes a spokesperson for Microsoft? And do _you_ know for sure that
> Mr. Letwin isn't that guy?

Yes. But that is irrelevant. See above.

> And just because he probably is ungodly rich and has a powerful
> position at a big corporation does not mean his freedom of speech
> rights are restricted in this public forum. As long as its not
> libelous or otherwise damaging to any other person, Mr. Letwin is free
> to post anything he wants.

This is not a question of free speech. Mr. Letwin is free to say what
he wishes (within USENET bounds, of course :-)). Mr. Sipples was trying
to remind Mr. Letwin that as an employee of MS, he reflects upon his
employer, and that perhaps refraining from further snide*, unprofessional**
remarks might be in his employer's best interests, as well as help ease
tensions in this newsgroup.

-Bryon

PS - Mr. Letwin has recently been challenging the accuracy of accusations
towards him, so I provide below brief examples, to justify my choice of
words. I will provide further justification for my comments (with full
quotes from the relevant articles), if he so wishes.
* example: Mr. Letwin's "if only accurate posts allowed, this newsgroup
would only get 4 posts a week" post.
** example: Mr. Letwin's "howler monkey" post, as well as his call to remove
IBM employees from this group.

Chris D Fanning

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 5:14:03 PM4/27/92
to

Come on now! Are you implying that someone such as the president shouldn't
be held responsible for his words? This is ludicrous! Public figures
unfortunately cannot speak candidly, they are seen (no matter how much you'd
like to think otherwise) as speaking for their institution.

You're 100% right though, he does have freedom of speech, and if he decides
to shoot his mouth off people will react negatively towards him and his
employer. There are consequences, freedom of speech doesn't mean that you
can say whatever you want no matter how silly/incorrect and get away with it.

Chris

Paul A. Vick

unread,
Apr 27, 1992, 9:38:42 PM4/27/92
to
In article <1992Apr26.2...@midway.uchicago.edu> si...@ellis.uchicago.edu (Timothy F. Sipples) writes:
>
>I respectfully disagree with the thrust of your argument. Perhaps I
>am a bit old fashioned, but Mr. Letwin is unavoidably, tacitly
>representing his company every time he commits something to paper or
>posts something here in a public forum.
>
>I think his company would be well within its rights to ask that Mr.
>Letwin conduct himself in a professional manner befitting Microsoft,
>especially when using company equipment to put forth his views.
>

I don't think you get the point here. "Not a Microsoft Spokesperson"
means that a person is requesting that other people not construe his
or her remarks as official company _policy_ and thus represents no
commitments on the part of his or her employer. Thus, if Gordon Letwin
says that Windows NT will rock your baby to sleep every night for you,
you should not expect to see an Infoworld headline next week saying
"MICROSOFT PROMISES NT TO ROCK BABY TO SLEEP: DIAPER ISSUE STILL
UNCLEAR" because his statement is not an "official" one.

You may argue that the behavior of a particular person may reflect on
a company as a whole, and indeed you may be right. You may argue that
Microsoft should ask him to stop using their equipment to post, and
indeed you may be right. But your points are moot. Mr. Letwin has not
been putting "Not Representative of Microsoft Employees" or "Not
Representative of the Style and Demeanor of the Microsoft Corporate
Entity" on his posts. Just "Not a Microsoft Spokesperson". You are
free to believe what you like about whether Mr. Letwin is
representative of Microsoft employees. You just aren't free to treat
his post the same as an official release from Microsoft. That's all.

[Since I've stopped reading comp.os2.misc, I won't read any of the
followups to this, so anyone interested in replying, feel free to mail
me.]

Paul

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Vick | "Stands to reason? What a silly expression. Why
Internet: vi...@cs.yale.edu | not 'lies down to reason'? Much easier to reason
Bitnet: VICPAUA@YALEVM | lying down..." - Tom Baker

David Skyberg, 615/482-1999

unread,
Apr 28, 1992, 6:16:44 PM4/28/92
to
In article <1992Apr27.0...@cs.mcgill.ca> be...@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
[discussion of Gordon Letwin's professionalism deleted]

>never the issue here. People were bashing Mr. Letwin because they were
>under the mistaken notion that because he owned stock in Microsoft, he
>had no right to claim that he wasn't a spokesperson for the company.
>While perhaps his attitudes, in some misguided way, may REFLECT on
>Microsoft, they most certainly don't REPRESENT Microsoft, which is the
>issue here. My point still stands, and I thank you for your comments on
>Professionalisn.
>
>- Brian

Brian,
Much of what you say is thoughtful and just. But you seem to have
missed the beginning of these threads. Gordon posted a message
stating that because of the new incentive program, the IBM
employees who post to this newsgroup should now be considered
the equivalent of AMWAY employees hawking their wares on USENET.

[special note to Mr. Letwin: I apologize if I misquote your original
post. I do not have access to an news archive, but I am pretty sure
that I have captured the gist of your message.]

Given that post, and if Mr. Letwin really subscribes to that logic,
then his disclaimer is disingenuous to say the least.

Brian CAPSON

unread,
Apr 28, 1992, 11:42:45 PM4/28/92
to
In article <1992Apr28.2...@ornl.gov> d...@msr.utk.edu (David Skyberg,

OK OK, instead of hiding behind "his disclaimer is disingenuous to say the
least", tell me what you think is wrong with his disclaimer. I know what
started the thread (his comments), but I'm not trying to justify nor condemn
them, just clear up the misconceptions about what disclaimers are all about,
and there seem to be a lot of them. Some people seem to think that they mean he
is trying to deny affiliation with the company, which is absurd. Have you ever
seen the editorial on your local late night news? After it's over, a voice
comes on and says "This editorial does not necessarily represent the views of
station WXYZ or its sponsors". This supposedly allows the editor freedom to
exercise his views without having to clear them through a panel of brass at the
station. This is precisely the same as anyone who attaches a similiar
disclaimer to their sig when they are "editorializing" on the net, as we all
do. Would it be more accepted if a MS spokesman were to appear on the net after
every posting by an employee and state "What this employee has stated does not
necessarily reflect the views of Microsoft Corporation or its shareholders"?
Obviously that's a bit of a hassle, so just make sure that every employee takes
it upon himself to be responsible for adding the disclaimer to each posting.
I can't make it any more simple than that, so if you still disagree with the
necessity of these disclaimers, tell me why in email.

I'm sure that most dutiful followers of this group are getting rather sick of
this thread, so lets move it to email, or finish it.

- Brian

Jeff Parsons

unread,
Apr 30, 1992, 5:58:32 AM4/30/92
to
In article <1992Apr21.1...@cs.cmu.edu> mur...@EUPHRATES.EDRC.CMU.EDU (Sesh Murthy) writes:
>Dear Mr. Letwin, The world is smart enough to realize why Microsoft chose
>stab its customers in the back and not support OS/2. You were too greedy
>to splity the pie with IBM. You wanted all of it. Now you try and
>generate FUD to counteract OS/2 popularity.

We cater to many classes of customers, ISVs are only one. And with few
exceptions, ISVs haven't wasted any time whining about this "they stabbed
me in the back" crap. Instead they've been cranking out software for the
most popular platforms to make as many of *their* customers happy.
And you can boil all of that down into greed if you like, including IBM's
decision to compete against Windows and Windows NT. Windows has been
around a lot longer than OS/2, and Windows NT demonstrates that the
platform can be evolved into a product superior (potentially) even to
OS/2, so one wonders why the far-sighted IBM didn't want to split our pie.
Could IBM be a tad greedy too?

>
>What is Microsoft withholding under the JDA. Is it some 3.1 code that you
>expect IBM to be unable to duplicate. Is that why Mr. Parsons is spreading
>FUD about 3.1 compatibility in OS/2

The only FUD I see is the doubt you and others try to cast on everything we
say. I'm not here because I'm scared of OS/2 or because I'm part of some
team out to convert people; I'm here out of simple curiosity and a personal
desire to set records straight when they go astray. After all, as I've said
before, I invested a lot of energy into OS/2 and 2.0 myself. I doubt I'll be
keeping tabs on comp.os.os2.misc much longer though, because the novelty has
long since worn off, and there's too much of this crap going on and nothing
very interesting technically. I wish you happiness in your singlemindedness.

Haibin Jiu

unread,
Apr 30, 1992, 11:51:57 AM4/30/92
to
In article <1992Apr26....@microsoft.com> gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
>Note the amusing "logic" of the above posting: Microsoft was "too greedy
>to split" with IBM - presumably this means developing OS/2 - so we
>gave the entire project to IBM!
>

Good point.

People do business to make money, and if they see something is not
worth trying, of course they should go for other things that are
more likely to be successful.

Whatever Microsoft's corporate motive is, they are just like any
other (big) coporations. I mean, come on guys, it's people like
Mr. Letwin at Microsoft who designed OS/2, and if they felt it was
not worth their time, what's wrong with abandoning it?

Bugs
Long live Mac...NOT!

Luc Bauwens

unread,
Apr 30, 1992, 3:19:46 PM4/30/92
to
In article <1992Apr30....@microsoft.com> jef...@microsoft.com (Jeff Parsons) writes:
>
>The only FUD I see is the doubt you and others try to cast on everything we
>say. I'm not here because I'm scared of OS/2 or because I'm part of some
>team out to convert people; I'm here out of simple curiosity and a personal
>desire to set records straight when they go astray. After all, as I've said
>before, I invested a lot of energy into OS/2 and 2.0 myself. I doubt I'll be
>keeping tabs on comp.os.os2.misc much longer though, because the novelty has
>long since worn off, and there's too much of this crap going on and nothing
>very interesting technically. I wish you happiness in your singlemindedness.

However, because of your tone, the way Gordon and you come across does
strongly convey the message that indeed, *microsoft is running scared*.

Whether it is true or not, you tell me. But that's the way
your postings come through. (And that other MS apologist -shareholder?-
-from McGill?- doesn't help either).

Luc B.

message

Charles Kincy

unread,
Apr 30, 1992, 4:39:30 PM4/30/92
to
Yes, this is a flame of Jeff Parsons. I don't care whether you read
it or not. I sure do feel a lot better having written it.

I've tried to be nice. I've sat on my hands for *weeks* as this guy
goes out of his way to piss people off. This, however, means war.

I know it's pretty unrealistic and naive to assume that the goal
of a corporation is to give its customers nice warm fuzzies. The
real motive of a corporation is to make mo' money, mo' money, mo'
money! Greed is good! Making profits is where it's at, no matter
what the long term CONSEQUENCES are!! Sacrifice tomorrow for the
profits you'll make today!! This is CORPORATE AMERICA, folks!!
And Microsoft as According to Jeff Parsons has it down to a tee!!!

In article <1992Apr30....@microsoft.com> jef...@microsoft.com (Jeff Parsons) writes:

[...]


>We cater to many classes of customers, ISVs are only one. And with few
>exceptions, ISVs haven't wasted any time whining about this "they stabbed
>me in the back" crap. Instead they've been cranking out software for the
>most popular platforms to make as many of *their* customers happy.

Of course. You have to do what you have to do. If ISV's spent all
of their time whining "Microsoft screwed us. Microsoft screwed us"
then they'd go out of business and leave Microsoft with a monopoly
in the applications business. So go ahead and whine, folks. You're
playing into Microsoft's hands. Don't say I didn't warn you.

>And you can boil all of that down into greed if you like, including IBM's
>decision to compete against Windows and Windows NT. Windows has been
>around a lot longer than OS/2, and Windows NT demonstrates that the
>platform can be evolved into a product superior (potentially) even to
>OS/2, so one wonders why the far-sighted IBM didn't want to split our pie.

Give us a break! Windows wasn't worth a shit until 1990, for Bill's
sake! Even then, for power users, it was a waste of time. Why did
software developers in your company develop on OS/2, if Windows
was so great? Why did Bill Gates say in '87 that OS/2 is the most
important operating system thus far in the history of the PC? Are
you calling him a liar, Mr. Parsons? We really want to know this.

As far as technically superior goes, I'll believe it when I see it.
The only reason I can see that Windows is "superior" to OS/2 is because
people buy Windows and not OS/2. Don't ask me why. However, current
conventional wisdom is that whatever is the most popular is the best,
so I guess this is valid.

>Could IBM be a tad greedy too?

I guess this is why IBM never posted a loss until last year and is
apparently recovering from that little anomaly quite well. That's
a long time to remain profitable. Let's see Microsoft do that for 50
years.

>The only FUD I see is the doubt you and others try to cast on everything we
>say. I'm not here because I'm scared of OS/2 or because I'm part of some
>team out to convert people; I'm here out of simple curiosity and a personal
>desire to set records straight when they go astray. After all, as I've said
>before, I invested a lot of energy into OS/2 and 2.0 myself. I doubt I'll be
>keeping tabs on comp.os.os2.misc much longer though, because the novelty has
>long since worn off, and there's too much of this crap going on and nothing
>very interesting technically. I wish you happiness in your singlemindedness.

Yes, and you've probably got a lot of egg on your face when you have
to take back a lot of things you may have said in the past about how
much Windows sucks and how much you like OS/2. I bet you're mad as
hell aren't you?

Good riddance.

CPK
Take followups to alt.flame if you dare. There you'll see what I
*really* think of you and your kind.

Shane Bouslough

unread,
May 1, 1992, 1:15:14 AM5/1/92
to
In article <1992Apr30.1...@cu23.crl.aecl.ca>
gu...@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:

>But I don't think any of this will disturb the 4 Billion Dollar Man
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
7 billion.

>Steve Gutz
>AECL Research Company, Chalk River Laboratories
>Chalk River, Ontario, Canada
>gu...@cc49.crl.aecl.ca


--
Shane Bouslough | #include <stddisc.h>
sh...@sbcs.sunysb.edu | #include <funnyquote.h>

Luc Bauwens

unread,
May 1, 1992, 10:30:45 PM5/1/92
to
In article <1992May01....@microsoft.com> ste...@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings) writes:

>In article <1992Apr30.1...@acs.ucalgary.ca> bau...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes:
>>However, because of your tone, the way Gordon and you come across does
>>strongly convey the message that indeed, *microsoft is running scared*.
>
>Neither of these folks speaks for Microsoft. No one pays them to post
>their stuff here. You cannot reasonably infer that a 10,000 person company
>is running scared by inferring things from the postings of two people.

Don't you miss my point? I am not talking about "reasonably inferring".
I am just trying to warn you guys about the way your tone and
perhaps more, the defensive attitude of MS people in general, comes
through. I am not talking logic or rationality, just
perceptions. In other words, I am saying that I don't think Gordon's
antics have been of very much help to MS' marketing.

(And no, I am not an OS/2 evangelist; I don't even think that the
bigots *on either side* like me very much :-). But I think it's
scary when people like Gordon come down to the same level as
the bigots... And if I would have money invested in Windows
application development, the way he comes through would have
me doubly worried.)

Luc B.


Gordon Letwin

unread,
May 2, 1992, 2:38:41 PM5/2/92
to
In article <pd!k4nd....@netcom.com> rc...@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
>Let's remember the reason Gordon's financial stake in MS became an issue.
>He posted an attack on IBMers posting here because of the financial stake
>they supposedly had in doing so. He started this.
>--
>Bob Cain rc...@netcom.com 408-358-2007


This is truely pathetic. Let me spell it out for those readers out there
who can reason.

First, Bob's assertion about my financial stake becoming an issue because
of my posting about IBM. In that posting, I specfically acknowledged
that a company employee has an indirect financial stake. I mentioned
myself SPECIFICALLY as being one such, and I pointed out that I always
make my affiliation clear.

I then argued that the IBM guys differed *IN THAT THEY RECEIVED DIRECT
FINANCIAL AWARDS* for pushing OS/2. Not indirect awards like continuing
to have a job, or having their stock go up, but a direct cash reward.
I receive no such direct financial awards for the success of any Microsoft
product.

Finally, what started this whole thing were the incredibly abusive posts
stating that magazine publishers and editors were "taking payola" and
were slanting the news in order to boost the value of their secret and
unethical Microsoft stock holdings.

So, Mr. Cain

1) accidentially "forgets" the outrageous series of postings
that did start this. Postings which were explicitly
referenced, and excerpted, in my IBM posting

2) completely misrepresents the very clear wording of that
posting

There are only two possible explanations:

1) Mr. Cain is very stupid, or
2) Mr. Cain will undertake to edit, ignore, and distort anything,
without any indication of ethics or shame, to vent his
spleen.

In either case, my condolances to your family.

Gordon Letwin

unread,
May 2, 1992, 2:59:38 PM5/2/92
to
In article <1992Apr27....@midway.uchicago.edu> so...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
> Nonetheless, his professional, accurate,
>complete, and factual postings might include such epithets as
>popular and successful in describing Windows. This is why people
>say that "not speaking for microsoft" is a deceitful disclaimer. He
>is in fact speaking for microsoft when he glorifies the product of
>his company in a news group where it is not welcome. (Gordon, I can
>quote your posting on this, so don't...)
>
>Min

What is your problem with my saying that Windows was "successful" and
"popular"? You imply that this means that "not speaking for Microsoft
is a deceitful disclaimer." Garbage. Is this what you learned
in place of logic? I say, "A ford taurus is popular". There, now
I'm an official spokesperson for Ford?

When faced with such absurdities one almost doesn't know what to say!

To sumarize, you state that:

1) "glorifaction of a product" makes you a company spokesperson.
This is nonsensical on the face of it.

But what do I know? Min has "a special kind of knowledge".
OK, so all those on this group who "glorify" OS/2 are
therefore official IBM spokespersons. And they've
said slanderous things about magainze publishers, myself,
Microsoft, etc. So Min says that IBM is now responsible
for those slanders. Good.

2) the terms "successful" and "popular" are very mild and are
in fact "accurate and factual." A persual of the trade
rags should show that "successful" and "popular" are
major understatements with regards to windows.

So you're 0 for two, Min. Are you dumb, or just mad?

gordon letwin
not a spokesperson for microsoft

Gordon Letwin

unread,
May 2, 1992, 4:23:32 PM5/2/92
to
In article <1992Apr27.2...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> cdfa...@csws19.ic.sunysb.edu (Chris D Fanning) writes:

>Public figures
>unfortunately cannot speak candidly, they are seen (no matter how much you'd
>like to think otherwise) as speaking for their institution.

I appreciate the flattery, but just to set the record straight, I am *not*,
legally speaking, a "public figure". This means that libels posted about
me on this net are indeed legally actionable. Everybody should be aware
that when I don't sue these guys it's just an example of my forebearance,
not an indication of a lack of cause or means.

And in fact, should things get offensive enough, I'd be forced to act
as to not jepardize my right of future protection against libel.
This should not be construed as a threat; I've just explained that the current
level of rudeness is not within the range I consider "dangerous",
I'm just saying that the sky is not the limit, so use common sense out there.

On any other group, I wouldn't have needed to post something like this.
Individuals enjoy a certain level of protection when libeling organizations,
but not when libeling other individuals who are not public figures.

Gordon Letwin
not a microsoft spokesperson

Gordon Letwin

unread,
May 2, 1992, 4:58:52 PM5/2/92
to
In article <1992Apr28.2...@ornl.gov> d...@msr.epm.ornl.gov (David Skyberg, 615/482-1999) writes:
>In article <1992Apr27.0...@cs.mcgill.ca> be...@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:
>[discussion of Gordon Letwin's professionalism deleted]
>
>
>Brian,
>Much of what you say is thoughtful and just. But you seem to have
>missed the beginning of these threads. Gordon posted a message
>stating that because of the new incentive program, the IBM
>employees who post to this newsgroup should now be considered
>the equivalent of AMWAY employees hawking their wares on USENET.
>
>[special note to Mr. Letwin: I apologize if I misquote your original
>post. I do not have access to an news archive, but I am pretty sure
>that I have captured the gist of your message.]

Yes, thank you, that's a reasonable distillation of the 2nd part of
my posting. The first part said that I was extending upon the logic
of earlier flamers who were railing that anyone who publishes an article
not sufficiently complimentary to OS/2 was taking payola or was secretly
a Micorosft shareholder and was prostituting himself to make those shares
go up. Now *I* would never deal with my fellow man so harshly, but since
that was the approved method on this group I just wanted to make sure
that all of the evil "self interested ones" were caught.

>Given that post, and if Mr. Letwin really subscribes to that logic,
>then his disclaimer is disingenuous to say the least.

This doesn't follow. You're saying that because I say something that you
don't like, therefore I'm a microsoft spokesperson!

As many people have tried to say, just because you say something that
an organization might like, it doesn't mean that you're a spokesperson for it.
And that's good, because that would make a lot of nasty people on this
net IBM spokespersons, and IBM wouldn't like that...

gordon letwin
not a micrsoft spokesperson


Gordon Letwin

unread,
May 2, 1992, 5:53:46 PM5/2/92
to

I've posted before how I believe that a lot of the Microsoft abuse is
motivated by envy. People have been quick to assure me that it's not
the case.

>But I don't think any of this will disturb the 4 Billion Dollar Man

>(read Bill Gates) as he reposes in his chez lounge out on the back deck
>of his 40,000 square foot house.


>
>Steve Gutz
>AECL Research Company, Chalk River Laboratories

I'm glad to hear that there's not a lot of mean spirted envy out there
causing people to spew venom.... for a moment there, I was uncertain.

Cliff....@vnet.ibm.com

unread,
May 3, 1992, 9:08:42 PM5/3/92
to
In <1992May02.2...@microsoft.com> Gordon Letwin writes:
>In article <1992Apr28.2...@ornl.gov> d...@msr.epm.ornl.gov (David Skyberg, 615/482-1999) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr27.0...@cs.mcgill.ca> be...@cs.mcgill.ca (Brian CAPSON) writes:

Gordon, I've stayed out of this mess until now because I haven't had
anything to say that wasn't induced from an emotional basis. However, I
would now like to inform you (and the other netters) about some of the
details of the OS/2 Ambassador program which will hopefully put this
issue to a temporay rest.

1) This is a voluntary program, therefore not all IBM employees on the
net are participating. You have to sign up for this and get your
packet before you can even start receiving rewards.

2) The program dispenses rewards based on the number of people that the
IBM employee contacts about OS/2 and gives demonstrations (or directs
them to a place where they can demonstrate. Therefore any attempt by
an IBM employee to solicit names for their use in the Ambassador
program would be using the net for hawking their wares. This type of
activity is also BANNED by IBM in our (the employee's) use of the
Internet and by our Business Conduct Guidelines.

3) The rewards are based on informing people about OS/2, not SELLING it.
If an employee puts a name on their list, that person does not need
to buy OS/2, merely get a demonstration as to it's ability.

As a personal note, I am emrolled in this program, but WILL NOT ACCEPT
any names that I receive from the Internet (if anyone tries to send
their name to me) for the Ambassador program. It would be unethical of
me to do so, and anyone who contacts me via netmail will get a polite
"Thanks, but no thanks" response (for my documentation to show that I
am not using the Internet for profit).

I am also not in the Ambassador program for it's rewards. I wanted to
get access to some extra resources to demonstrate OS/2 locally for my
chapter of TEAM OS/2. The rewards mean very little to me.

Thanks, Cliff
Not speaking for IBM or IBM Federal Systems Company.

BTW Gordon, please continue any factual posts to the net, I personally
appreciate hearing about some of the early decisions about OS/2, even
though I may not agree with some of your opinions.

Toby Everett

unread,
May 3, 1992, 10:12:28 PM5/3/92
to
In article <920504010...@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU> cna...@vnet.ibm.com writes:
>I am also not in the Ambassador program for it's rewards. I wanted to
>get access to some extra resources to demonstrate OS/2 locally for my
>chapter of TEAM OS/2. The rewards mean very little to me.
Is there any way that ordinary people like me can get into the
program, not for the rewards, but for the resources?

>
>Thanks, Cliff
>Not speaking for IBM or IBM Federal Systems Company.

--Toby Everett
--teve...@jarthur.claremont.edu
--"I'm rooting for Boca. How about you?"

Robert Cain

unread,
May 3, 1992, 11:43:38 PM5/3/92
to
gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
:
: First, Bob's assertion about my financial stake becoming an issue because

: of my posting about IBM. In that posting, I specfically acknowledged
: that a company employee has an indirect financial stake. I mentioned
: myself SPECIFICALLY as being one such, and I pointed out that I always
: make my affiliation clear.

So do they.

: I then argued that the IBM guys differed *IN THAT THEY RECEIVED DIRECT


: FINANCIAL AWARDS* for pushing OS/2. Not indirect awards like continuing
: to have a job, or having their stock go up, but a direct cash reward.
: I receive no such direct financial awards for the success of any Microsoft
: product.

That program has absolutely no relationship to postings here on the net.
You are mixing arenas in a self serving and yes, pathetic way.

: Finally, what started this whole thing were the incredibly abusive posts


: stating that magazine publishers and editors were "taking payola" and
: were slanting the news in order to boost the value of their secret and
: unethical Microsoft stock holdings.

No, I said that to me it smelled of payola. That is not secret unethical
stock holdings, that is direct cash payment.

: So, Mr. Cain


:
: 1) accidentially "forgets" the outrageous series of postings
: that did start this. Postings which were explicitly
: referenced, and excerpted, in my IBM posting

Who said I forgot them? Where do you get off saying that?

: 2) completely misrepresents the very clear wording of that
: posting

Total bullshit. You're forgetting. Your accusation was also total
bullshit and misrepresantation. You know full well that no posting
here ever put one penny in an IBMers pocket through the sales program.
You simply used the program in a pathetic attempt to make IBMers look
bad. Gordon, you are reductioning yourself ad absurdum.

: There are only two possible explanations:


:
: 1) Mr. Cain is very stupid, or
: 2) Mr. Cain will undertake to edit, ignore, and distort anything,
: without any indication of ethics or shame, to vent his
: spleen.

Them's fight'n words son. Remember we have a lunch date in a year or so.
Your incivility is making that look unlikely. Are you drinking again?
If so you should stay off the net and spare us and yourself this spectacle.

:
: In either case, my condolances to your family.
:

I take that as a personal threat. I wish to meet with you to discuss what
it means specifically. My number is given below. During the day I can
be reached at 408-441-2135. Since you only sporadically check in here I
will be attempting to contact you tomorrow. Someone at Microsoft please
advise Mr. Letwin of this.

Bob

"There are some strings. They're just not attached."
Victoria Roberts

sl...@cc.usu.edu

unread,
May 4, 1992, 2:16:50 PM5/4/92
to
In article <1992May02.2...@microsoft.com>, gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
> I appreciate the flattery, but just to set the record straight, I am *not*,
> legally speaking, a "public figure". This means that libels posted about
> me on this net are indeed legally actionable. Everybody should be aware
> that when I don't sue these guys it's just an example of my forebearance,
> not an indication of a lack of cause or means.
>
> And in fact, should things get offensive enough, I'd be forced to act
> as to not jepardize my right of future protection against libel.
> This should not be construed as a threat; I've just explained that the current
> level of rudeness is not within the range I consider "dangerous",
> I'm just saying that the sky is not the limit, so use common sense out there.
>
> Gordon Letwin
> not a microsoft spokesperson

Correct me if I'm wrong... but, wouldn't suing someone for libel on the
net be extremely difficult. Fake addresses and signatures aren't really
that hard to create.... (See april 1st posting from "Bill Gates")

I just think that actually making it stick in court would be kinda rough.

-dave

Robert Cain

unread,
May 4, 1992, 2:52:56 PM5/4/92
to

"There are some strings. They're just not attached."
Victoria Roberts

Don Clayton

unread,
May 4, 1992, 3:25:36 PM5/4/92
to

In a lot of cases it's also an International post (say like this one). So who's
law do we use? US, Canada's or UNs? Mind you Gordon probably has the money to
burry us in legal costs, so who cares about the law?

Imagine the legal battles over alt.flame!

Don
BNR has better things to do then tell me what to say on Internet,
so I hardly think these are their views.
"Pick up the receiver, I'll make you a believer." - Depeche Mode

Gess Shankar

unread,
May 4, 1992, 5:27:40 PM5/4/92
to
i...@ra.msstate.edu (Tim Tsai) writes:

>
> What a silly thread. While I don't agree with many of Mr.
> Letwin's postings and some of his postings of lately have been
> of questionable taste (I don't blame him though), I don't think
> he needs to apologize to anyone. Personally I have enjoyed his
> technical postings and take his opinions with a grain of salt.
> Who cares whether he's a Microsoft spokesperson or not. He says
> he's not, and that's good enough for me. I hope we haven't
> scared away all the MS employees (but please keep the
> discussions to OS/2. Note the Newsgroups: line.).
>
> BTW, played with OS/2 2.0 GA at a friend's house last night.
> I'm sold.
>

Amen. Silly, it is. It is somewhat perpetuated by Mr Letwin, who feels
compelled to respond to every logical and illogical criticism of his
postings (mostly illogical and lacking substance, according to Mr Letwin).

Fora such as this one are not a suitable venues for verbal repartees.
Too much time passes between action and reaction and most of the time
all semblance of relevance is lost... especially for non-participants.

Like Tim, I gain something from Mr Letwin's technical postings. But
postings from people bashing MS, trade press and the Letwin responses
(logical though they may be) tend to get tiresome. I am hoping such
postings will move to comp.os.os2.advocacy. (when, oh when?)

In the meantime, how about holding off on such things? Also, if you
are quoting someone, please do quote from the article. If you do not
have access to the original article, I think it is not a good policy to
shoot off from memory, putting words in another person's mouth and
provoking one response after another.

This is an OS/2 forum. Right now, OS/2 is IBM. I think a little IBM
bashing is in order - in the areas of distribution, PR, developer support,
etc etc. In fact.. everything. Bringing out areas of weaknesses for
discussion may do some good for OS/2. Even Mr Letwin thinks so. (Yes,
I have archives. I can pull quote from his response re Doug Hamilton) :>

Bashing M$ is not going to change anything. They do whatever it takes
to win in the marketplace. IBM has the size, the resources to compete.
Probably the one entity which could have been a serious competition to
Microsoft... but the way things are going......

GeSS
--
(Where is Mr Spock, when we need him to provide logic for c.o.o.m?)

Gess Shankar |<><>|Internet: ge...@knex.Gwinnett.COM |<><>|
Knowledge Exchange|<><>|{rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!knex!gess|<><>|

Daniel WJ Johnson

unread,
May 4, 1992, 6:17:37 PM5/4/92
to
In <1992May02.1...@microsoft.com> Gordon Letwin writes:
>In article <pd!k4nd....@netcom.com> rc...@netcom.com (Robert Cain) writes:
(stuff deleted)

>I then argued that the IBM guys differed *IN THAT THEY RECEIVED DIRECT
>FINANCIAL AWARDS* for pushing OS/2. Not indirect awards like continuing
>to have a job, or having their stock go up, but a direct cash reward.
>I receive no such direct financial awards for the success of any Microsoft
>
> gordon letwin
> not a microsoft spokesperson
>
As far as your posting only absolutely known facts, can you help out a bit
here. You say we receive "DIRECT FINANCIAL AWARDS". What we actually get for
referring 15 people is a pin and a complimentary application software package.

I, for one, think there is a little bit of difference between FINANCIAL REWARDS
and what is actually being given out. You not only IMPLY that we get MONEY for
doing this, you actually STATE it. You stated a factual falsehood.

Or, can you tell me how much money (you said FINANCIAL REWARDS) I get for
promoting OS/2? Please limit it to DIRECT and not INDIRECT.

Dan

min-woong sohn

unread,
May 4, 1992, 9:52:47 PM5/4/92
to
In article <1992May02.1...@microsoft.com> gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>In article <1992Apr27....@midway.uchicago.edu> so...@midway.uchicago.edu writes:
>> Nonetheless, his professional, accurate,
>>complete, and factual postings might include such epithets as
>>popular and successful in describing Windows. This is why people
>>say that "not speaking for microsoft" is a deceitful disclaimer. He
>>is in fact speaking for microsoft when he glorifies the product of
>>his company in a news group where it is not welcome. (Gordon, I can
>>quote your posting on this, so don't...)
>>
>>Min
>
>What is your problem with my saying that Windows was "successful" and
>"popular"? You imply that this means that "not speaking for Microsoft
>is a deceitful disclaimer."

Gordon, you are not reading and reasoning (Is reasoning your favorite
word?). What I said was that to call a software "popular and successful"
is not a technical and professional knowledge. Don't you distinguish
the evaluative from the factual? I don't have a problem with your
calling Windows popular and successful. But I have a problem with
your calling it so when **you are from MS (the manufacturer of Windows)
and claiming that you are not speaking for MS**.

>Garbage. Is this what you learned
>in place of logic? I say, "A ford taurus is popular". There, now
>I'm an official spokesperson for Ford?

Of course, not, if you are not a fool. But see above. You just
don't think and reason, or you seem to think in an incurably
appologetic mode these days. BTW, do you call something you
don't or can't understand garbage?

>
>When faced with such absurdities one almost doesn't know what to say!

^^^^^^^^^^^
Do you just declare things you don't like absurdities? I think
that's a sign of the weak of mind.

>
>To sumarize, you state that:
>
> 1) "glorifaction of a product" makes you a company spokesperson.
> This is nonsensical on the face of it.

No, I didn't say that. Put my words in the right context or logic, if
you will.

>
> But what do I know? Min has "a special kind of knowledge".
> OK, so all those on this group who "glorify" OS/2 are
> therefore official IBM spokespersons. And they've
> said slanderous things about magainze publishers, myself,
> Microsoft, etc. So Min says that IBM is now responsible
> for those slanders. Good.

Well, if you don't like the term a special kind of knowledge, I apologize.
I apologize because my words fall in a wrong ear. Your mind doesn't have
a place for sarcasm.
But, again, you're just repeating your earlier statement. No, I am not
saying that the glorification of a certain product makes one a spokesperson
of that product or its company.

>
> 2) the terms "successful" and "popular" are very mild and are
> in fact "accurate and factual." A persual of the trade
> rags should show that "successful" and "popular" are
> major understatements with regards to windows.

Yes, they are mild. But then don't impose your definition of successful
on others. For one, I don't think Windows a successful product at all.
It is popular, I concede.

>
>So you're 0 for two, Min. Are you dumb, or just mad?

No, I don't think so. But again it's really sick that I should read this kind
of personal attacks in this news group.

Min


Steve Hastings

unread,
May 4, 1992, 10:39:56 PM5/4/92
to
In article <1992May01....@microsoft.com> ste...@microsoft.com (Steve Hastings) writes:
>Ob. Windows: any time you want to save your desktop settings in Program
>Manager, press Alt+Shift+F4. (This requires Win 3.1.) I turned off the
>"Save Settings on Exit" switch in my Program Manager; I just use this
>trick when I want to save.

I have received a question in email about this. I'd like to post a
clarification: to save your Program Manager settings, you have to be *in*
Program Manager when you do this. If you are not in Program Manager when
you do this, whatever it is you are in will probably exit since most apps
don't check for Alt+Shift+F4 separately from Alt+F4. My apologies to
anyone who tried this from within their terminal software while reading my
article.
--
Steve "I don't speak for Microsoft" Hastings ===^=== :::::
uunet!microsoft!steveha ste...@microsoft.uucp ` \\==|

br...@ais.com

unread,
May 5, 1992, 5:29:34 PM5/5/92
to
In article <1992May1.1...@cu23.crl.aecl.ca>, gu...@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:

> In article <1992May1.0...@sbcs.sunysb.edu> sh...@sbgrad5.cs.sunysb.edu (Shane Bouslough) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr30.1...@cu23.crl.aecl.ca>
>> gu...@cc49.crl.aecl.ca writes:
>>
>>>But I don't think any of this will disturb the 4 Billion Dollar Man
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>7 billion.
>>
>
> After the first couple of Billon does it really matter? :-)

Well, as B. Everett Dirkson used to say about the Federal budget (&
deficit), a billion here and a billion there and pretty soon you're
talking about real money. :-) :-)

Bruce C. Wright

gol...@mbcl.rutgers.edu

unread,
May 6, 1992, 10:12:22 AM5/6/92
to

On top of that, I suspect that the courts would consider the inet a "free
speech" forum. It's pretty hard to sue someone for speech; I think that
you then have to sue for slander *not* libel, and then the standard of
proof is much higher. Any lawyer wish to comment?

If I'm right, maybe we should *really* go after the "great" - well at least
*he* thinks so - G.L. :-)

Adrian
--
Adrian Goldman | Internet: Gol...@MBCL.Rutgers.Edu
Molecular Biology Computing Laboratory | Bitnet: Goldman@BioVAX
Waksman Insitute, | Phone: (908) 932-4864
Rutgers University, | Fax: (908) 932-5735
Piscataway, NJ 08855 USA |

Gordon Letwin

unread,
May 6, 1992, 2:04:33 PM5/6/92
to
In article <1992May02.0...@acs.ucalgary.ca> bau...@acs.ucalgary.ca (Luc Bauwens) writes:
>But I think it's
>scary when people like Gordon come down to the same level as
>the bigots...

You, and many other people, fail to see the pattern in my postings.
I'm not "coming down to the same level as the bigots", I'm ridiculing
specific bigot postings by applying their crazed "logic" to the sacred
cows of this net.

To see the sacred cows "attacked so outrageously" generates a furor on the
group, but apparently no one notices that it's the bigot's own crazy
arguments that I'm applying...

I've been almost totally reactive on this net, simply using other people's
topics and "logic"...

The good news is that as the crazies die down and the traffic focuses on
the nominal subject of this group, OS/2, there's been comparitively little
need for my duties as "official group lancer of boils"...

Timothy F. Sipples

unread,
May 6, 1992, 5:58:59 PM5/6/92
to
In article <1992May06.1...@microsoft.com> gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>You, and many other people, fail to see the pattern in my postings.
>I'm not "coming down to the same level as the bigots", I'm ridiculing
>specific bigot postings by applying their crazed "logic" to the sacred
>cows of this net.
>To see the sacred cows "attacked so outrageously" generates a furor on the
>group, but apparently no one notices that it's the bigot's own crazy
>arguments that I'm applying...
>I've been almost totally reactive on this net, simply using other people's
>topics and "logic"...
>The good news is that as the crazies die down and the traffic focuses on
>the nominal subject of this group, OS/2, there's been comparitively little
>need for my duties as "official group lancer of boils"...
> gordon letwin
> not a microsoft spokesperson

The newsgroup comp.os.os2.advocacy is now ready. Please follow up to
comp.os.os2.advocacy.
--
Read the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST, avail. | Timothy F. Sipples
via anonymous ftp from 128.123.35.151, directory | si...@ellis.uchicago.edu
/pub/os2/faq, or via netmail from server | Dept. of Economics
LIST...@BLEKUL11.BITNET (send "HELP" for help). | Univ. of Chicago 60637

T.Lampre

unread,
May 6, 1992, 8:08:46 PM5/6/92
to
Just putting this thread where it belongs...

Trevor Lampre

Ken Bass

unread,
May 6, 1992, 8:57:18 PM5/6/92
to
How can I change the Boot manager settings. For example, I want to go
back and take away the 30 timer booting OS/2. Instead, I want to
manually select it. I can't seem to find this anywhere.

Documentation- OS/2 doc are nonexistant. The manuals are horrible in
terms of technical information. The online help is okay, but I prefer
paper.

---KEn

--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Bass (kb...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu)
School:
George Mason University

Ian Stirling

unread,
May 7, 1992, 6:33:03 AM5/7/92
to
In <1992May7.0...@gmuvax2.gmu.edu> Ken Bass writes:
>How can I change the Boot manager settings. For example, I want to go
>back and take away the 30 timer booting OS/2. Instead, I want to
>manually select it. I can't seem to find this anywhere.

Ken, in an OS/2 window start the program FDISK. When this is running
move the block cursor to the boot manager partition and press enter.
This will bring up a menu of actions. Tab down to Set Startup Options,
or something like that, and press enter again.

You will now be able to change the delay time.

Cheers,
Ian Stirling Internet: i...@vnet.ibm.com
CICS/ESA Systems Facilities Bitnet: ian at vnet
IBM UK Labs Ltd, Hursley, England IBMIPnet: i...@stirling.hursley.ibm.com

Kai Uwe Rommel

unread,
May 8, 1992, 10:12:24 AM5/8/92
to
gor...@microsoft.com writes in article <1992May02.1...@microsoft.com>:

> What is your problem with my saying that Windows was "successful" and
> "popular"? You imply that this means that "not speaking for Microsoft
> is a deceitful disclaimer." Garbage. Is this what you learned
> in place of logic? I say, "A ford taurus is popular". There, now
> I'm an official spokesperson for Ford?
>
> When faced with such absurdities one almost doesn't know what to say!

My condolences, Gordon, but I would suggest you then to really SAY
NOTHING! Perhaps we all would benefit. Remember, this news group was
created for discussion/exchange of news/hints/technical details about
OS/2, not to give you an arena to teach people how to post.

> So you're 0 for two, Min. Are you dumb, or just mad?
>
> gordon letwin
> not a spokesperson for microsoft

Gordon, even *if* there were people who don't live up to your
expectations about their qualifications to use logic, there is no reason
to offend them this way. During your last postings you show an amazing
amount of arrogance.

Because you don't have to (or don't want to) say anything helpful here
any more (I remember the times when you posted details about HPFS etc.),
you start flaming people, right?

Most people here (as far as I read the postings) showed their respect
about your knowledge and contributions to OS/2 and wondered publicly
about why you (apparently against better knowledge) started promoting
Windows (I don't mean NT here!) instead and that they fear that you only
have to follow the MS strategy.

Nobody blamed MS programmers (or others) for creating Windows and making
it a marketing success. It was perhaps the best to do at the time it was
created and of course uses a lot of neat tricks to fool DOS.

However, people (including me) complained (and sometimes flamed) MS
employees for STILL promoting it as if it where the BEST solution to our
computing needs even when they certainly KNEW that this is no longer the
case and there is a better solution (I don't say the best!) and MS even
has created a substantial part of it.

You wrote that in the good old days only experienced programmers and
ARPA researchers were posting to USENET who had some degree of education
but I am sure those people also had enough education to know how to
communicate correctly and objective with others! From this point of
view, you don't really qualify too.

If you blame IBM people for getting paid for their support in this
group, I can only say, this is RIGHT (if it is the case), because they
did a nice job and provided us with valuable information during the last
months, as opposed to Microsoft. MS employees did only post here when
some next Windows conference was held (those who are interested in this
kind of information certainly also read the comp.windows.ms groups).

Gordon, I wonder if you would leave us alone if only comp.os.windows-nt
would exist (anyone wants to create it to get rid of Gordon?). Probably
not. Instead you would continue to annoy people here, apparently
following a new MS strategy which is to hurt the competition when MS
can't compete with them any more because they lost their credibility.

I would appreciate it if we could move this discussion to e-mail because
it tends to become a flame war totally unrelated to this group.

Kai Uwe Rommel

--
/* Kai Uwe Rommel Muenchen, Germany *
* rom...@jonas.bofe.sub.org Phone +49 89 723 4101 *
* rom...@informatik.tu-muenchen.de Fax +49 89 723 7889 */

DOS ... is still a real mode only non-reentrant interrupt
handler, and always will be. -Russell Williams

Larry Margolis

unread,
May 9, 1992, 7:02:22 PM5/9/92
to
In <1992May02.1...@microsoft.com> gor...@microsoft.com (Gordon Letwin) writes:
>
> I then argued that the IBM guys differed *IN THAT THEY RECEIVED DIRECT
> FINANCIAL AWARDS* for pushing OS/2. Not indirect awards like continuing
> to have a job, or having their stock go up, but a direct cash reward.

Hey Gordon,
I've been here (comp.os.os2.misc) from the beginning, sharing what
information I could, from a desire to be helpful. I tell Windows users
how much better OS/2 is simply because I hate to see people suffer needlessly.
I've never received any award, direct or indirect, for my participation.
Please explain to me how I can get some direct cash rewards out of this.
(And should I be asking for a receipt every time I answer a question? :-)

Larry Margolis, MARGOLI@YKTVMV (Bitnet), mar...@watson.IBM.com (Internet)

Gordon Letwin

unread,
May 10, 1992, 7:28:09 PM5/10/92
to
In article <"barnacle.e.389:04.04.92.23.28.41"@clarkson.edu> dw...@vnet.ibm.com (Daniel WJ Johnson) writes:
>>
>As far as your posting only absolutely known facts, can you help out a bit
>here. You say we receive "DIRECT FINANCIAL AWARDS". What we actually get for
>referring 15 people is a pin and a complimentary application software package.
>
>I, for one, think there is a little bit of difference between FINANCIAL REWARDS
>and what is actually being given out. You not only IMPLY that we get MONEY for
>doing this, you actually STATE it. You stated a factual falsehood.
>
>Or, can you tell me how much money (you said FINANCIAL REWARDS) I get for
>promoting OS/2? Please limit it to DIRECT and not INDIRECT.

Sorry, I can't tell you how much money that you receive. You'll have
to talk to your bosses, or to the folks who issued the press release
that the following story was written from.

Note that copyright issues prevent me from posting much of this article,
I'll trim it down for that reason... I'll leave it as an exercise
for you IBM guys to read the original article and note that I haven't
quoted out of context.

*********************************************
Computers: IBM Is Offering Workers Prizes To Hawk OS/2 ----
By Paul B. Carroll Staff Reporter of The Wall Street
Journal
...

So IBM is about to launch a program that will attempt to
turn all its 344,000 employees into salesmen for [OS/2]
----------^^^
...

IBM will offer employees incentives ranging from medals to
IBM software or hardware to cash, depending on how much
-------------------------------------^^^^
effort they put into OS/2.

A "Lucy Baney" was mentioned in the article as talking about the
program and it's rewards, why don't you do your own homework and
find out about your organizations activities, instead of accusimg me
of stating falsehoods. I get a lot of that from IBM...

So to answer your question, I guess you have to work a lot harder to
earn that cash...

Anything else you need to know about your OWN ORGANIZATION, feel free
to ask...

gordon letwin
who may be becoming an IBM spokesman, at this rate!

Timothy F. Sipples

unread,
May 11, 1992, 12:09:00 AM5/11/92
to
Please follow up to comp.os.os2.advocacy.
--
Read the OS/2 FREQ. ASKED QUESTIONS LIST, avail. | Timothy F. Sipples
via anonymous ftp from 128.123.35.151, directory | si...@ellis.uchicago.edu
/pub/os2/general/faq, or via netmail from server | Dept. of Economics

Daniel WJ Johnson

unread,
May 11, 1992, 6:04:58 PM5/11/92
to
Did you see his response to my post to his? He puts an article written before
the announcement ahead of the official announcement. He implies IBMers don't
know what the announcement is.

I really don't think he's that far gone.

The only thing I can even imagine is that he is truly spreading garbage. How
does someone like that stoop so low?

PS how many people have told you not to bother posting? I've gotten quite a
few just telling me to ignore him.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages